The Fate Of Obamacare And Birth-Control Being Discussed By Trump And Officials

Conservatives could win a major battle in their fight for “religious liberty” if Tom Price, the new Health and Human Services Department secretary, rescinds an Obamacare mandate that insurance companies include free contraceptive coverage in their policies.

Some business owners argue they should not be required to provide insurance plans that violate their religious beliefs to their employees. Reproductive-freedom advocates point out that businesses do not pay for the birth-control coverage, and that the mandate is important for low-income women.

The Hill reported that Price, in his confirmation hearings, indicated he does not support the requirement. “I think contraception is absolutely imperative for many, many women, and the system that we ought to have in place is one that allows women to be able to purchase the kind of contraception they desire,” he said.

In 2012, while Price was in Congress, he made an impassioned speech blasting the mandate. “Bring me one woman who has been left behind. Bring me one,” he declared. “There’s not one. The fact of the matter is, this is a trampling of religious freedom and religious liberty in this country.”

Price now has an opportunity to get rid of the statute, because the HHS secretary does not need congressional approval to take such action. He might base repeal of the provision on President Trump’s recent executive action calling for a rollback of Obamacare. “They could issue new guidance that says plans have more leeway to cover what they need to cover,” Laurie Sobel of the Kaiser Family Foundation explained. “I think the contraception requirement is at risk.”

An HHS spokesman would not reveal Price’s plans. “We aren’t going to speculate on future policy,” the staffer said.

The Republican majorities in the House and Senate also are targeting the birth-control rule. “There’s a lot of pressure on this administration and a lot of people within the administration who clearly have an agenda that runs contrary to this provision,” Adam Sonfield of the Guttmacher Institute told The Hill. “It certainly looks like a strong possibility that they’re going to try to do something.”